Standing Committee E

[Dame Marion Roe in the Chair]

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [Lords]

Cheryl Gillan: On a point of order, Dame Marion. I wonder whether you can help me. I think that it is only fair to raise the following matter at this stage in proceedings.
 The Bill started in November 2003 in another place. On 4 March, it was the subject of a complaint by Baroness Anelay, who voiced the Opposition's views on the fact that even though the Bill had already been in the other House for three months 17 pages of Government amendments on mental incapacity were suddenly tabled on the eve of the eleventh hour. At that stage, my noble Friend asked for recommittal proceedings, which were quietly brushed aside. 
 What is so sad about this Christmas tree Bill is that almost nine months later and four sittings before the end of the agreed time for the scrutiny of the Bill by this Committee, the Government have again tabled a series of significant amendments that make a great deal of difference to the Bill. This is not the first time that that has happened. So serious are the amendments that they involve yet another adjustment to the long title—I think that it has now been adjusted three times. 
 I would like your advice, Dame Marion, about what can be done. The Government's action is not in the spirit of the way in which we have tried to co-operate with them on the Bill, or in the spirit of effective scrutiny of the legislation. It shows that the Government are so chaotic that they cannot get their act together in nine months to present the House with a suitable draft Bill. It robs those organisations outside the House who have been intimately involved with the passage and process of the Bill of the opportunity to consult and feed back their views on important clauses. Once again, the spectre of recommittal in the other place is raised because their lordships have not had a chance to scrutinise large chunks of the Bill. 
 Dame Marion, can you advise me whether it would be in order to ask for recommittal of the Bill in another place, and whether there is any way that we can prevent such activity by the Government, which looks like sharp practice?

David Heath: Further to that point of order, Dame Marion. I share the hon. Lady's dismay about such a significant group of amendments being tabled at this stage of the Bill's passage. The Bill has not been making quick progress through its parliamentary stages. It has suffered repeated delay both in another place and between the two Houses—we seemed to wait an inordinate amount of time for it to make further progress in this House.
 Although it would be inappropriate to talk about the content of the amendments, and I do not intend to do so, it is right to say so that they are both significant and, in large part, leftovers from the previous enactment, the Courts Act 2003, in connection with which they should have been considered. It is stretching the good nature of the Committee to introduce major amendments at this stage, when we had been making good progress and felt that we were doing justice to the Bill. I fear that we will not now have the opportunity to scrutinise the new amendments, and the other place will certainly not have such an opportunity unless the hon. Lady's request is acceded to.

Marion Roe: I listened carefully to what the hon. Members said, but the points of order are not a matter for me. The tabling of the amendments was carried out in accordance with the correct procedures. What happens in the other place is certainly nothing to do with me. The points of order are, in fact, matters for debate between the hon. Members and the Minister.
 Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 26 - General functions of Commissioner

David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in clause 26, page 16, line 15, at end insert—
'(d) ensure that the Domestic Violence Advocacy Service established under section [Domestic Violence Advocacy Service] is maintained in each local justice area; 
 (e) make a report to the Secretary of State on the operation of the Domestic Violence Advocacy Service, and in particular: 
 (a) the accessibility of services offered to victims of crime; 
 (b) the adequacy of resources made available through the Domestic Violence Advocacy Service Fund for the purposes; and 
 (c) any other matters related to the provision of services to victims of domestic violence.'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 87, in clause 29, page 17, line 8, after '28', insert—
'and section [Domestic Violence Advocacy Service].'.
 New clause 30—Domestic Violence Advocacy Service— 
'(1) In this section, ''Voluntary organisation'' means a charity or an organisation operating on a not-for-profit basis. 
 (2) The Secretary of State shall establish, maintain and develop a national service known as the Domestic Violence Advocacy Service for the purpose of promoting the availability to victims of services of the descriptions specified in subsection (3) and, in particular, for securing (within the resources made available, and priorities set, in accordance with subsection (6)) that victims have access to services that effectively meet their needs. 
 (3) The descriptions of services referred to in subsection (1) are— 
 (a) the provision of help in developing and implementing a plan for ensuring the safety of the victim and the safety of the children of the victim as a priority; 
 (b) the provision of general information, relevant to the victim, about the law and legal system and the availability of legal services, 
 (c) the provision of help by the giving of advice as to how the law applies in the particular circumstances of the victim, 
 (d) the provision of information as to the availability to the victim of relevant support services offered by other agencies, 
 (e) the provision of assistance in accessing services relevant to the victim that are offered by other agencies, 
 (f) the provision of help in relation to legal proceedings, whether in the family, criminal or civil courts. 
 (4) The services of the descriptions specified in subsection (3) shall be accessible to victims at any hour and on any day and shall be provided by persons of the same sex as the victim where requested by the victim. 
 (5) The Secretary of State shall establish and maintain a fund known as the Domestic Violence Advocacy Service Fund from which services of the descriptions specified in subsection (3) shall be funded as part of the Domestic Violence Advocacy Service. 
 (6) The Secretary of State shall prepare a code setting out the criteria according to which he will decide how to fund services as part of the Domestic Violence Advocacy Service. 
 (7) When preparing the code referred to in subsection (6) the Secretary of State shall consult all relevant bodies (and, in particular, voluntary organisations) who are able to communicate the views of victims of domestic violence. 
 (8) The Secretary of State may accredit, or authorise others to accredit, voluntary organisations providing services of the descriptions specified in subsection (3); and any system of accreditation shall include provision for the monitoring of the services provided by accredited organisations and for the withdrawal of accreditation from any providing services of unsatisfactory quality. 
 (9) The Secretary of State may fund services as part of the Domestic Violence Advocacy Service by— 
 (a) entering into contracts with voluntary organisations for the provision of services by them, 
 (b) making payments to voluntary organisations in respect of the provision of services by them, 
 (c) making grants or loans to voluntary organisations to enable them to provide, or facilitate the provision of, services, 
 (d) establishing and maintaining voluntary organisations to provide, or facilitate the provision of, services, 
 (e) making grants or loans to individuals to enable them to obtain services, 
 (f) doing anything else which he considers appropriate for funding services. 
 (10) The Secretary of State may by order require accredited bodies providing services of the descriptions specified in subsection (3) to discharge those services in accordance with the order.'.

David Heath: Having got the earlier skirmishes out of the way, I welcome you to the Committee this morning, Dame Marion.
 I should say straight away that amendment No. 54 is not the substantive amendment in the group. In a way, it serves as a paving amendment for new clause 30, which has received all-party support and on which other hon. Members will wish to speak. 
 Amendment No. 54 proposes that the suggested domestic violence advocacy service could usefully and sensibly fall within the remit of the commissioner for victims and witnesses. The commissioner would be a proper arbiter of the effectiveness, efficiency and adequacy of the service. I do not want to pre-empt the arguments that will properly be made by other Committee members in support of the creation of the domestic violence advocacy service; I will simply say that I am indebted to those outside the Committee 
 who have promoted the concept, particularly Davina James-Hanman, director of the Greater London domestic violence project, to whom I have spoken on the subject and who has provided an excellent briefing. 
 As the Greater London authority made clear, an advocacy service would be a significant improvement on present facilities in terms of addressing issues of domestic violence, reducing the suffering of victims and creating an atmosphere in which domestic violence is less likely to occur—that, after all, is the thrust of this legislation. Such a service would also reduce demands on other services that might be provided. [Interruption.] I am very disconcerted by the fact that someone's phone is ringing; it is not mine.

Marion Roe: Order. There seems to be a noise coming from somewhere in the Committee Room, and it should not be.

David Heath: I can only assume that it is coming from the Conservative Whip's jacket.

Cheryl Gillan: Oh, it's this one.

David Heath: The hon. Lady has a record of difficulties with phones over the past week that does not bear repeating. I have some sympathy with her, because on this occasion the problem was not her fault.
 To return to the serious point that I was making, we believe that the establishment of a domestic violence advocacy service would be a significant move towards reducing the effects and incidence of domestic violence; most important, it would assist the victims of domestic violence. The amendment would help the support network to be genuinely national and comprehensive. The commissioner would have locus in ensuring that that happened, and would report to the Executive and to Parliament in that respect. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Vera Baird: I am indebted to the Greater London authority, Women's Aid and Southall Black Sisters, all of which support the proposition that a domestic violence advocacy service ought to be developed and that, in accordance with the framework set out in new clause 30, it should be funded by the Government.
 The purpose of such a service is clear and well known to the whole Committee. The victims of domestic violence—primarily women—have great difficulty in making complaints. A well-known statistic is that it often takes 35 incidents before a woman will complain, and in that model the level of violence escalates as time passes. There are a number of reasons why it is difficult for women to make complaints. The abuser, usually her partner, might have the money and own the house. His and her families could be close, or his family might help with child care so that the woman can go out to work, so what would she do for money if she complained about him and could not work? He would have to leave or, worse still, she would have to leave and go to a refuge. What then? The children would lose their father, be poor and emotionally upset. The family might break up, all because she could not put up any longer with something that, after all, had not killed her—so far. 
 Those well-known factors all make it difficult for women to come forward, and we must combat them if the Bill is to be successful. 
 The Bill deals primarily with how to get cases to court and what to do then. If women are not supported at the early stages and encouraged to make complaints, the subsequent steps will never be taken. This point is somewhat counter-intuitive given the factors that I have set out, but when a woman finally makes a complaint, the agencies all too often do not take the case forward with the enthusiasm or give her the support that one would wish. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service have taken huge steps recently, but it is clear from a joint thematic report by the inspectorates of both organisations published a few months ago that their response is still sometimes half-hearted. The reforms that are clearly well embedded in the thinking of policy makers in both groups have not yet dispersed down and throughout the organisations. Women who find the strength to make complaints therefore sometimes receive a weak response. 
 In New Zealand there is a system of advocates to support women. Once an officer has calmed down a domestic violence situation to which he has been called, he has the job of calling in the advocacy service, subject to the complainant giving her permission, which almost always happens. There is a 24-hour call-out programme to bring an advocate out to befriend the woman. The best way of describing an advocate is as a befriender and supporter of the victim of domestic violence who helps to steer her through everything that follows the complaint. 
 The factors that I mentioned earlier often lead to difficulties. The woman might have to leave home and will need refuge accommodation and somewhere to go after she does so. She might need support and help for her children if she takes them with her. If she remains in the home and the perpetrator leaves, safety measures must be taken—locks must be changed, the police must be informed and the perpetrator's whereabouts must be known. Her benefits position is likely to change because the family is breaking up. She might need counselling, support and a multiplicity of things that she will be totally unable to manage for herself given her distressed state after taking a major step about which she may still be uncertain. The victim might have to go to the civil courts, notwithstanding the action that we have taken to integrate the two systems conveniently, and she might need help to master the complexities of court procedure. Having taken the step of complaining, she might be unable to drive the agencies forward with the criminal prosecution. A skilled advocate can assist her with all those matters. Such advocates will, through their organisation, be well-connected with the range of services available and will be able to support the complainant throughout the process. 
 I had the privilege of talking about New Zealand's system of advocates with the Attorney-General of New Zealand, Margaret Wilson, when she visited this country a couple of weeks ago. She said that domestic violence is no longer a hot issue in New Zealand in the way that it continues to be in this country. She 
 attributes that to the success of the advocacy system: a powerful message has been sent that the state is on the side of the person who makes a break from domestic violence, and that has played an integral part in reducing the problem. 
 Such a system has helped in various states where it has been adopted to increase conviction rates because of the fortitude that it brings to the complainant, who can sustain her complaint through the criminal justice system. The star turn—if I can describe it that way—is San Diego in the United States where not only has there been a vast reduction in repeat domestic violence offending, but a 75 per cent. reduction in domestic violence homicides. 
 Reference has been made to the substantial costs of policing domestic violence. It is estimated that each of the 500,000 domestic violence calls to which officers responded in 2000 cost the taxpayer an average of £1,027, suggesting an annual policing cost of more than half a billion pounds. That figure does not, of course, include the cost of those agencies that help in such situations. By contrast, it is thought that the cost of an advocate's support of a domestic violence complainant from start to finish is likely to be about £780. Cost is, of course, a secondary matter—supporting women through court procedures is the primary purpose of the system. However, those figures show that there can be a cost saving, which everyone will appreciate. An advocacy service could be an important and cost-efficient system. 
 It is hard to find an argument against such a system except that it will cost money to set it up. Some advocacy systems are already in place. There is an excellent one in Cardiff to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) has given much support. Another is in place in Croydon, and two weeks ago, when I opened the new premises of Victim Support in Redcar, I discovered the embryo of an advocacy service in that town. A person who used to work for Women's Aid has now moved to Victim Support, taking all of her expertise and contacts with her, and she fulfils the role, although one person is not enough even in a small borough such as Redcar. 
 I have a strong sense that my hon. Friend the Minister is sympathetic to the need for an advocacy system and, if the Bill is to justify the effort that has been put into its drafting and progress through the House, it is not possible to argue that it will be effective unless support is injected into it at the beginning. I beg to move amendment No. 87 and new clause 30—

Marion Roe: I correct the hon. and learned Lady. She cannot move anything. I have already put the question.

Cheryl Gillan: I shall try not to move anything but my colleague's jacket, Dame Marion.
 I support the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). The amendments are extremely significant. I hope that the copious notes in front of the Minister do not suggest that he is about to reject the amendments. I acknowledge that they might need some improvement, although they have been worked 
 on by devoted and dedicated people, but I hope that he will take seriously the points that have been made because the amendments lay out an excellent blueprint for a domestic violence advocacy service, which could be duplicated and replicated throughout the country. 
 Present provision is patchy; more is needed, and there is evidence from the areas where there is a form of advocacy service that it is of invaluable benefit to the victims of domestic violence. The hon. and learned Member for Redcar has an amazing track record in this area. While researching on the internet the other day, I came across the fact that she had been to Africa to talk about the subject to members of the legal profession there. Domestic violence is not an isolated problem, but there are few lessons that we can learn from countries close to us. People have to go to Australia and New Zealand to see effective advocacy services that have been operating for some time. 
 The proposals in the amendments and the new clause would establish a victim-centred service, which would go a long way to providing a comprehensive system of aid and assistance. However, as we discuss those proposals, I would like us to consider some broader points. The hon. and learned Lady mentioned the provision of a 24-hour helpline; I agree with her about that. Evidence from other countries shows that when solicitors or lawyers man such a helpline, it is even more effective. Goodness forbid that I should say that lawyers are particularly useful members of society in any forum, but in this case I acknowledge that they are essential to the process, because of the complex problems that are brought to the helpline. 
 A helpline should be accessible not only to victims but to other service providers such as refuge workers, police and lawyers. Experience in other countries has shown that that is a great benefit, because it is not only victims who require assistance with complex problems; those to whom she turns for help might not be entirely familiar with what is available and what can be done on her behalf. 
 The capacity to negotiate on behalf of victims who have experienced difficulties with service providers, such as the police or courts, and the ability to lodge complaints on their behalf, is also a vital part of the service and should be available at any stage, because victims of domestic violence may find as their case progresses that the services that they are receiving are less satisfactory than when they first approached an agency to help them. 
 Advocacy is important because it assists women with their particular problems. An advocacy service would also permit the services that are provided to victims to be monitored and provide us with a vehicle for improvement, which is not currently available. I should be interested to see what information and analysis the Home Office holds in respect of existing organisations and their effectiveness and whether it has made any critical analysis of the current services. I would like the Home Office to produce a report, perhaps annually, to evaluate and help in the organisation and joining-up of services throughout the country. 
 Non-English speaking victims must have good communication lines into help and advice services. The network and the advice service must be able to support victims from ethnic minority backgrounds. Another point that emerged in other countries is the desirability of anonymity. Some research showed that women were reluctant to phone a domestic violence advocacy service in case the dialling code and number appeared on their telephone record, and the very act of contacting an advocacy service became a tool and weapon to be turned against them. Some thought must be given to that, particularly at Government level, to ensure that there is an anonymous route for victims of domestic violence to seek help. 
 Over the years, the military have fought discrimination, drugs and alcohol abuse; domestic violence is another area on which they need to focus. It destroys families and scars children in civilian life, but in the services it can affect military readiness as well. I am interested to hear whether the Minister has had any discussions with the Ministry of Defence about an advocacy service for the armed services or a route through which victims of domestic violence can find assistance. If he does not accept the amendments, I hope that he will make proposals on what he will do. 
 I was looking at a timeline for the Australian advocacy service, which is based in and around Sydney, and I was alarmed to find that although funding was sought to provide a specialist legal service in April 1986, it took many years for the service to come to fruition. Even though demand was high and an independent evaluation of the project in the first year found that the model in use was directly relevant and appropriate, funding was reduced: there was a 20 per cent. cut in the original funding, which had a dramatic impact on the direct services for women. Funding was eventually fully restored in 1997. The organisation is innovative and unique, and I hope that if the Minister has not had an opportunity to study some of the reports on the Australian domestic violence advocacy service, he will examine them in future. 
 If the amendments are not acceptable, I ask the Minister please not to wait so long to produce joined-up Government thinking on this matter. Many people have spent a lot of time and put a lot of effort in the proposal, and the service is much needed to help the victims of abuse in this country.

Julie Morgan: I rise to speak in support of a universal domestic violence advocacy service. However good we make the law and however much effort we put into the Bill, it will not be effective unless there is a support service for women. That is key to preventing domestic violence and repeat domestic violence. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar said, we in Cardiff are fortunate to have such a service, run by the women's safety unit. The services proposed in the amendments are exactly those provided by that organisation, which has made a huge difference to women in Cardiff.
 I have probably said this before, but when a woman who is in distress because of her partner's violence comes to my surgery, I have an outlet for her. I phone the women's safety unit, which offers an immediate 
 service. Its staff go to her home, or arrange an appointment if she does not want to be seen there; they can visit in the evening or contact her during the night. It is a tremendous service and the staff respond enthusiastically and offer a great deal of support. They see their key role as getting in there, helping to support the woman and ensuring that she accesses services. They look after the children and contact the housing department or social services if necessary. Their aim is to keep the woman in the home, and usually they succeed because they put such effort and resources into doing so. 
 One of the key aspects of the women's safety unit is its composition. The staff come from different disciplines. There is a serving policewoman, which I believe is unique in the UK, and people from Women's Aid, Black Women's Aid, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the probation service. The group's staff and the way that they work so cohesively under the inspired leadership of Jan Pickles mean that they are all individually able to offer the advocacy service. Their different professions mean that they have strong links with the courts, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. They all meet at the Cardiff domestic violence forum, which I chair. 
 I cannot say too strongly what a difference the service has made to the approach to domestic violence in Cardiff. It is now accepted that advocacy is a key priority for different agencies in the city. As a result of its advocacy, there is a domestic violence court, where all such cases are listed together. I cannot emphasise enough how much help it has given to women in that situation. A smaller unit is starting in Caerphilly and I would like that sort of model, perhaps in a different form, to provide a service throughout the UK. The key element is cost, which is the one thing that perhaps might make it difficult for Ministers to accept the proposals.

Sandra Gidley: Is the hon. Lady aware that some research shows that having an advocacy service reduces costs in the long run? It is short-sighted to use cost as an excuse, because overall there are benefits rather than costs.

Julie Morgan: Absolutely. The proposal cuts down the costs in the long term, but in the present system, it is difficult to obtain the initial start-up costs. I know, because I tried to get start-up funding for the service, and it was not easy. It started as a one-off Home Office-funded pilot project, with £300,000 for one year. After that, we had great difficulty in ensuring that it was funded jointly by the Home Office and the Welsh Assembly; it is now totally funded by the Welsh Assembly. The hon. Lady makes an important point, but we should not underestimate the difficulty of getting start-up funding for projects of this sort.
 The Cardiff model is definitely the one that we want to expand. The women's safety unit spends a lot of time travelling around the country, going to conferences and so on, to say what it is doing and to spread the success of the project in Cardiff. The figures for Cardiff are distinctly different from those for the rest of Wales. The number of cases being reported and the number of women taking cases to court have gone, up as we would wish, and the number of repeat 
 offences has gone down. Those significant research findings back up the work of the women's safety unit and its effect can be clearly seen in the fact that the figures for the rest of Wales are so different from the ones for Cardiff.

Cheryl Gillan: I am particularly interested in what the hon. Lady has to say. She will agree with me that once a service is established, any cut in the funding is very damaging. Has she any idea what it would cost to roll out the programme as a pilot throughout Wales, for example, so that full coverage of a large area could be evaluated? Obviously, the funding results in savings, not only in human terms but also in financial terms.

Julie Morgan: I do not know exactly what it would cost to roll out the project in the whole of Wales, but it cost £300,000 for one year in Cardiff, which is the biggest centre of population in Wales. Some people working in the unit were seconded by their organisations, so that would be an additional cost. In other areas, especially rural ones, a different model might be needed.

Vera Baird: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has seen the briefing from the office of the Mayor of London, which estimates that the cost of a national advocacy service, not just one in Wales, might be about £45 million per annum.

Julie Morgan: Yes. I support the proposal in the amendments, but because of the up-front costs, it is clear that it is something that we may have to work towards. However, the law will not by itself achieve what we want for women who suffer from domestic violence; the support that the advocacy service can provide is also needed.

Sally Keeble: I strongly support a national advocacy service. Several types of service are already in place, but they are a hotch-potch, without the underpinning of a role defined in statute.
 Two organisations in my constituency deal with domestic violence: the Sunflower centre, an outstanding, multi-agency centre, which was funded by the Home Office with a £100,000 grant to start with; and a Bangladeshi women's association, which does work on domestic violence and without which it would be impossible to get into some of the difficult issues that face Bangladeshi women. 
 Both agencies provide the types of service that colleagues have spoken about, but the main thing that they do is to stop the women being victims. There is a strong strand of empowerment in their thinking. Both agencies are located in the voluntary sector, and I see them transform women who have come out of horrendously violent relationships into independent and reasonably confident women. As part of its empowerment course, the Bangladeshi women's association brought a group of women to Parliament for a day. You may remember, Dame Marion, that I wrote to you about translation services for them. Such activities are a part of giving them confidence, making them understand how legislation works and so on. 
 Existing services do not have a statutorily defined role. They have to operate on the basis of good will and therefore work somewhat on the margins. The second issue may be linked to the first, in that the services do not have secure funding. The Sunflower centre, which has achieved enormous results, operates hand to mouth from year to year, although it should be one of the flagship services that the Home Office provides, because it is stunningly good. 
 The services seem to be well located in the voluntary sector, but there is a strong need for inter-agency working and strong links with different agencies so that they can deliver through the criminal justice system, social services and the benefits system. Having good links with the black ethnic minority communities, as the Bangladeshi women's association has, is key, as are the services for children and the location of the services in safe settings. The Sunflower centre is over a hairdresser's shop, so women do not feel conspicuous if they go in—a hairdresser's is a fairly normal place to go and no one watching would get the idea that the women might be going there to complain about domestic violence. 
 I hope that, if my hon. Friend the Minister cannot support the amendment, he can carry out some form of stock take, as was done in respect of refuge services, and see exactly what is out there. Perhaps he has done so already. I hope that he will then draw from best practice, perhaps do a mapping exercise to show where services are and what the results are, and try to provide secure funding and to build constructive support for these organisations. The Bill is great, but we need agencies out there that can deliver for us. They need to be centred on the needs of the women and, above all, to stop them being victims and to empower them.

Robert Walter: I shall deal specifically with the question of cost. I do not know whether the figure from the Mayor's office of £45 million, which the hon. and learned Member for Redcar cited, is accurate, but I have no reason to dispute it. That said, £45 million on one side of the equation is quite a small sum when compared to the benefits that emerge on the other side of the equation. We are trying to take a joined-up approach by creating a system in which a number of voluntary organisations can be brought into play for the benefit of victims.
 At all stages of the proceedings on this long-overdue Bill, it is the victim about whom we must be concerned. If we can create a framework in which the victim finds it easier to access all that is available to them, the proposals are thoroughly worth supporting. By using existing organisations as well as others that might come into play, we might lift some of the burden from victims of domestic violence and reduce the costs that flow from their being unable to access joined-up services. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) stressed the importance of anonymity when people are accessing services. If we introduce the proposed service, its telephone number—freephone, one hopes—should not be easily traceable or appear on telephone bills, because violent 
 partners often examine telephone bills to find out what calls have been made by their victims. British Telecom provides a list of numbers called almost as a matter of course, so the information may be easily accessible if no action is taken. I would be particularly concerned about that, but otherwise the proposed service should be supported. I hope that we do not hear from the Minister that we will not proceed with it simply on the ground of cost.

Ann Keen: I simply want to place on record the fact that Refuge supports the new clause and amendment.

Paul Goggins: Good morning, Dame Marion. It is good to see you in the Chair.
 Our debates in Committee and in the House are always enriched when we speak from our constituency experience, especially our direct experience of constituency surgeries. That has certainly been the case this morning. I pay tribute to the services that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar opened in her constituency, to the Sunflower centre mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) and to the services in Cardiff referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North, with which she has been directly involved. 
 As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar said at the outset, the police and other criminal justice agencies are much better at responding to the needs of victims of domestic violence.

Sally Keeble: Will my hon. Friend also give credit to the Bangladeshi women's association, which does outstanding work in difficult circumstances? I am sure that their members would appreciate their work being recognised by the Minister.

Paul Goggins: I certainly will. I was trying to give a flavour of my acknowledgement of the tremendous work that is being done. I appreciate that the group referred to by my hon. Friend faces many challenges in its work, and I pay tribute to it.
 We recognise that advocacy services are a key element of support to victims of domestic violence. Many organisations already use advocates to great effect and projects have shown that they can be cost effective. Members on both sides of the Committee have made that point, and we acknowledge that ultimately the use of advocates can sometimes save, rather than cost, money. 
 The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked about evaluation; it is important that we evaluate all that we do and all the needs that we see. I draw her attention to the recent report on specialist domestic violence courts and fast-tracking systems, which was undertaken on behalf of the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the CPS. It found that advocacy services are crucial to the success of the courts. I confirm also that early indications from the crime reduction research programme on advocacy services that is due to be published this summer are also very positive. I hope that the hon. Lady is reassured that we take evaluation seriously. All the 
 evaluation that we are doing indicates positive developments.

Cheryl Gillan: Has the Minister evaluated or set in train a process to evaluate the examples given by Committee members?

Paul Goggins: I shall deal with that shortly. The hon. Lady mentioned anonymity, as did her hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter). That is one of the important issues that we weigh in the balance as we assess the importance of the services and the right way to proceed.
 I hope that the Committee will be assured that the Government agree that domestic violence victims may need the support across a range of services at a time when they are most vulnerable, traumatised, and not in a position to help themselves. We are considering the case for the greater use of independent advocates in supporting victims through the criminal justice system and providing wider support to victims in dealing with the many statutory agencies that may be involved in their cases. 
 The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked about our discussions with the Ministry of Defence and the possible use of advocacy services by the military. At this stage, we have not had detailed conversations, but as we assess the role that such services can play and if we decide to develop an advocacy service we will want to see how that dovetails with the needs of the military.

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister has struck a cold blow at my heart by saying, ''If we ever consider advocacy services.'' I presume that that is a precursor to rejecting the amendments.
 Will the Minister undertake to have a conversation with the Ministry of Defence and report back to the Committee on whether the military would be appropriate group in whom to test a domestic violence advocacy service? They seem a cohesive group of people who, together with examples from the other pilots, could provide the sort of back-up that the Minister will require before he, such is his generosity of spirit, forms a service.

Paul Goggins: I hope that Committee members will not see my comments as a blow and that they will be encouraged to hear that we are making a careful assessment of the role of advocacy services, their cost effectiveness and the real part that they can play in providing the support needed by domestic violence victims when they are at their most traumatised.

Vera Baird: Of course everything has to be carefully assessed, and my hon. Friend says that the Government are making an assessment of services' cost effectiveness and importance. However, he has already referred to advocacy services as capable of being cost effective—he has called them crucial. What more does he need to know?

Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North captured the mood of the debate well when she said that we might need to move towards establishing a service. Starting from the current evaluation, we have to establish at what pace we can move, what services to support, and so forth. I am
 trying to give encouragement to my hon. and learned Friend and others. We take the issue seriously. We are at an important point, because we are considering how we spend money, how much money we spend and what we spend it on. All I can say to my hon. and learned Friend is that the issue is very much in our minds during those discussions.

Sandra Gidley: It is always slightly depressing to hear the word evaluation, because it sometimes seems to be just another word for procrastination. We see that a lot in the health service. I accept the Minister's good will, but will he undertake to consider examples from other countries as well? In San Diego, there has been a joined-up approach and a good advocacy service for about 15 years, and the number of domestic homicides has been reduced by about 75 per cent. The effect has been so powerful that President Bush, with whom I rarely agree, is putting money into further schemes. If we wait for evidence from Britain alone, it will be a long time before anything is on the statute book.

Paul Goggins: Of course we will weigh the evidence and experience from other countries. That is important. It is also important to acknowledge that the Government are currently investing in advocacy services. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North mentioned an investment of £100,000, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North mentioned a £300,000 grant to get services started. We are not inactive. The question is to what extent we can extend and improve that service, and that is the subject of our current assessment. The amendments talk about creating a statutory service. We certainly do not want to create additional bureaucracy. There is a clear consensus in the Committee that we want ever more effective services at the sharp end of the problem, and that is the direction in which we are looking.
 On a more technical note, new clause 30 is probably broader than intended. It sets out services of which a domestic violence advocacy service would promote the availability, but it does not define those services with specific reference to victims of domestic violence. As such, presumably any victim as defined by clause 29 could seek to obtain them. 
 As we do not intend to create a statutory service, amendments Nos. 54 and 87, which bring the domestic violence advocacy service under the remit of the commissioner for victims and witnesses, are unnecessary. We are learning from experience and looking closely at the development of services for victims of domestic violence so that they can receive the advice, help and support that they undoubtedly need. I hope that hon. Members will be assured that the Government treat the issue with the utmost seriousness. In that spirit I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Vera Baird: Can I just complete the equation and ask my hon. Friend for his comments on the estimate from the Mayor of London's office that a national advocacy service could cost around £45 million per annum? Does he accept that an advocacy service would need to reduce domestic violence by only 1 per cent. to be cost effective, and overseas experience
 shows that such a reduction could be easily achieved? If it could achieve a 10 per cent. reduction, which on overseas models is challenging but realistic, there would be a net saving to the Treasury of about £400 million.

Paul Goggins: I am not in a position to comment on the specific figures that my hon. and learned Friend quotes. Although £45 million is a significant sum, there may in the end be a financial saving and, of course, a saving in terms of the lives and the quality of life of the victims of domestic violence.

Vera Baird: I can see that the Government support the proposals and simply want to take their own route to get to what the clause seeks to achieve. Can my hon. Friend help me on the timeline, so that we can be satisfied that he will come back with some proper evaluations within a reasonable period?

Paul Goggins: I cannot give my hon. and learned Friend a specific commitment on time. In view of our deliberations on spending generally and our deliberations in Committee on this issue, this is an important time to engage in such considerations. I can promise that the issues are being treated with great seriousness.

Ann Keen: I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he is assessing the new clause. Perhaps we should put it on the record that Opposition parties are also willing to spend the necessary sums. I wonder whether that has been cleared with their Front Benches.

Paul Goggins: I acknowledge the comments of my hon. Friend, who is in a good position to know about these matters.
 The debate this morning has been about taking a long-term view that can provide a cost-effective service in terms of quality of life and, indeed, the saving of lives. I assure the Committee that we are considering this very carefully, but we do not believe that we need to reflect those considerations in the Bill. I conclude my remarks by asking once again that the amendment not be pressed.

David Heath: That was an excellent debate and I am grateful to all the Members who contributed. The Minister's response to it, however, was wishy-washy in the extreme. He said, ''We are evaluating, thinking, moving in the right direction.'' Today, he had the golden opportunity to make the Bill do what it says on the tin. He could have created something that would have transcended changing the criminal law and urging an alteration in attitude across the country; he could have provided genuine support for the victims of domestic violence in every town and village in the country, but he flunked it.

Sally Keeble: We have heard how some Labour councils and the Government have supported domestic violence projects. Can the hon. Gentleman say how many Liberal Democrat councils have funded such projects in their areas?

David Heath: A considerable number, but I shall not list them all. That kind of partisan point is unhelpful.

Sally Keeble: It was not meant in a partisan way.

David Heath: It was a partisan point. I hoped that we were all looking to improve facilities, not only in our cities where the problem is greatest, but throughout the country. Current voluntary provision is patchy: although often supported by local authorities of all political persuasions throughout the country, it is often not provided in areas of serious need, such as rural areas, which have not yet been mentioned in the debate. I know that the original proposal came from the Greater London authority, but no one is more isolated than a person living in the sort of area that I represent—a very rural area—where there is no obvious recourse. Although some excellent voluntary organisations supported by our local authorities provide help, it is difficult to get to them, and nobody is more isolated than the person in an abusive relationship living in a rural setting who feels that they have nobody to whom they can turn.
 The amendments could have represented a real breakthrough in providing an advocacy service that could have made a difference. The fact that we can make comparisons with other countries where such a service has been well established and has made a difference makes it all the more alarming that we in this country are moving so slowly towards achieving the same objective.

Cheryl Gillan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this was hardly a surprise move on the part of any Committee member, not least the hon. and learned Member for Redcar, since the Bill has been on the stocks for nine months? In an Adjournment debate the other day, the Home Office did not put up the Minister with direct responsibility to respond to it but another Minister in the Department, which was disappointing. There has been plenty of time for the Minister to have taken into consideration all the hurdles—I will not call them barriers—that have been put up, and for the Government to have prepared a more generous response.

David Heath: I agree. My difficulty with the Government's response is that I know that they have a vague idea that they would like some form of advocacy service dealing in the wider sense with criminal law. I do not disagree with that, but I do not think that it will do the job that is proposed in relation to the specific issue of domestic violence. We need a bespoke service providing support for victims of domestic violence.
 We have heard from the hon. Member for Cardiff, North about her experiences in her constituency; all of us could point to evidence of excellent work that is done in our constituencies by often underfunded and overstretched voluntary organisations. The problem with not having any statutory organisation or underpinning of that structure is that provision is piecemeal, there are vast deserts where there is none, there is no benchmark for that provision, and it is not the sort of comprehensive provision that both supports the victims and discourages the crime. 
 If we want evidence that we can discourage crime in this way, we have only to look at the areas of the world where such an advocacy system is up and running to 
 see a real reduction in the incidence of crimes that fall into the category of domestic violence. Even without the cash saving, that should be enough to persuade Committee members and the Government of the wisdom of this move. I am deeply disappointed because, despite its benign attitude, the Home Office is not prepared to do anything. I hoped that the Bill would make a difference in a much wider area. I am not decrying its intentions or certain elements in it, but I hoped that we would move beyond statute to implementation. Although I accept that there have been improvements in procedures and attitudes, it does not go far enough. 
 There are often good intentions at senior levels—among Ministers, chief constables and senior officers—but sometimes the performance at the lowest levels is not as we would wish. This measure would have done something about that, and at the end of the day the House will have to make a decision on it. I give notice that we will return to this matter on Report. I do not know in whose name amendments will be tabled and I do not care, as long as there is a debate on the issue. We will have to have a Division on Report, because we must make it clear to the Government how important we feel this provision is. The Minister has a little time to think about what his response will be when we debate the matter in the Chamber in a few weeks.

Cheryl Gillan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the speed with which Government amendments can be tabled at the eleventh hour shows that the Government will have no problem introducing suitable amendments on Report?

David Heath: The Home Office can move mountains when it chooses. We are asking it to choose to do so on this important issue. For now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Lady Hermon: Clause 26 deals with the general functions of the commissioner. I think that we would all agree that the functions set out in subsection (1) are laudable. It states that the commissioner must
''promote the interests of victims and witnesses'',
 take steps to encourage 
''good practice in the treatment of victims and witnesses''
 and advise on the updating of the code of practice, which we discussed on a previous occasion. 
 I want the Minister to explain to the good people of Northern Ireland why they have been forgotten with regard to the functions of the commissioner for victims and witnesses. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome described his response as ''wishy-washy''. In fairness to the Minister, I pay a warm tribute to him for his great courtesy in speaking to me about the Bill before Second Reading. I mentioned to him that there had been a victims commissioner in Northern Ireland, but I hope that I did not mislead him at that stage into believing that we still had a victims commissioner in Northern Ireland. 
 The commissioner, Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, was appointed in 1997, when Mo Mowlam, the predecessor of the hon. and learned Member for Redcar, was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The victims commissioner's remit in Northern Ireland is available on the Northern Ireland Office website. Sir Kenneth Bloomfield was commissioned by the Secretary of State to examine the feasibility of providing greater recognition for those who had become victims in the past 30 years as a consequence of events in Northern Ireland; he was the victims commissioner dealing with victims of the horrible 30 years of violence. He did a superb job. If one looks at the Northern Ireland Office website, however, one could be led to believe that he still holds that position. He published a report in 1998, entitled ''We will remember them'', which is a seminal work for victims of the troubles. However, his remit never extended to victims of general crime, or to victims of domestic violence in particular. 
 Sir Kenneth's term of office ended when he presented that report, but as I said, the Northern Ireland Office website does not indicate when he stood down or when his term as the victims commissioner ended. Having spoken to him last Friday evening when we met at a social function, I explained to him that I had given a press interview for which I had relied on information from the Northern Ireland Legal Services Commission's website in relation to his work as the victims commissioner. That website says that he was victims commissioner from 1997 to 2003, but that is not the case; Sir Kenneth himself explained that his term was time-limited to when he presented his report. 
 Will the Minister reflect on a response that he gave to me on Second Reading, in which he said that there was a different system in Northern Ireland, and that there was a victims commissioner? I apologise if I gave the impression to him that Sir Kenneth is still in post. He is certainly not still in post, and his remit never extended beyond the victims of the troubles. Will the Minister explain why clause 26 deprives the people of Northern Ireland—victims and witnesses—of the benefit of the functions of the commissioner? Why should not that be included in the Bill?

Paul Goggins: This debate gives me the opportunity to apologise to the hon. Lady for the clear misunderstanding on Second Reading. I said at the outset of our deliberations that the passage of a Bill, particularly through Committee, is a learning experience for everybody, and I now understand more clearly both the remit of the victims commissioner and the time scale during which he served. In our private discussion, the hon. Member for North Down explained the work that he had done, and she expressed the view that I might learn something from him. That was very much the spirit in which I sought to pursue those discussions, so I hope that she accepts my apology for the misunderstanding. I understand more clearly now.
 More substantially, the hon. Lady makes the point that the people of Northern Ireland are forgotten in relation to these issues. I do not agree. I know that she is dissatisfied about the way in which these services are 
 being developed in Northern Ireland, and she expressed that disappointment and displeasure the other day. My view is that we seek a similar outcome, but take a different route. The Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), mentioned the other day the criminal justice review and the sub-committee that is currently dealing with some specific issues. 
 I understand and acknowledge that the hon. Lady remains dissatisfied at the pace with which the measure is being taken forward. No doubt she will continue to discuss the matter with my ministerial colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, but we cannot seek to advance it through the Bill. I say to her that the people of Northern Ireland are not forgotten, but that the route to developing adequate and proper services for victims of crime in Northern Ireland, whatever the crime, is a responsibility that is firmly in the hands of my ministerial colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister and accept his generous explanation and apology. I remind him and other members of the Committee that clause 1 of the Belfast agreement, signed on Good Friday in 1998, stated—it was voted for in the referendum in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland—that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom unless and until the people of Northern Ireland vote otherwise. I remind him that criminal law is not a devolved issue; responsibility for criminal law and for victims and witnesses remains firmly here at Westminster, not in the Northern Ireland Office.

Paul Goggins: I repeat the point that the development of services in response to the needs of victims of crime, of whatever nature, is in the hands of my ministerial colleagues in Northern Ireland. I have had discussions with them on the issue and have made the hon. Lady's dissatisfaction clear to them, although I am sure that they were already aware of it.

David Heath: I observe that the Home Office always goes into a flat spin whenever Northern Ireland or courts martial are mentioned. I support the contention of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). When the jurisdiction clearly falls within the remit of this Parliament and the Department, albeit in conjunction with the Northern Ireland Office, it is not acceptable that matters in Northern Ireland are often forgotten until someone has the good sense to point them out.

Paul Goggins: I am either in a flat spin or wishy-washy—take your pick. I stand accused of both by the hon. Gentleman. At the risk of being repetitive, I say to hon. Members that the criminal justice review 2000 in Northern Ireland made various recommendations in relation to victims. I am assured by colleagues that those recommendations are being acted on, and it is clearly their responsibility to do so. I ask the hon. Member for North Down to accept that explanation, even if she does not agree with the pace at which those services are being developed.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 27 to 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30 - Authorities within Commissioner's remit

Paul Goggins: I beg to move amendment No. 90, in clause 30, page 17, line 34, at end insert—
'(1A) An authority specified in Schedule 6 that has functions in relation to an area outside England and Wales is within the Commissioner's remit only to the extent that it discharges its functions in relation to England and Wales. 
 (1B) Subsection (1A) does not apply in relation to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 4, in schedule 6, page 36, line 27, at end insert— 
'9A HM Treasury. 
 9B The Cabinet Office.'.
 Amendment No. 49, in schedule 6, page 36, line 31, at end insert— 
'11A The Police Service of Northern Ireland'.
 Amendment No. 50, in schedule 6, page 36, line 32, at end insert— 
'12A The National Criminal Intelligence Service 
 12B The National Crime Squad'.
 Amendment No. 51, in schedule 6, page 36, line 32, at end insert— 
'12A The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary 
 12B The Ministry of Defence Police'.
 Government amendment No. 91. 
 Amendment No. 52, in schedule 6, page 37, line 2, at end insert— 
'13A Any authority that is maintaining a body of constables in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.'.
 Amendment No. 55, in schedule 6, page 37, line 13, after 'court', insert '(including a court martial)'.

Paul Goggins: I fear that in the remarks that I am about to make I will offer further irritation to the hon. Member for North Down, and I apologise for that in advance.
 The amendments seek to extend the remit of the commissioner for victims and witnesses to include additional specified authorities. I shall comment briefly on each authority in turn and explain our thinking on whether it should be included or excluded from the commissioner's remit. 
 First, I shall deal with the Treasury and the Cabinet Office. Members of the Committee will see that all the Departments listed in schedule 6 as being currently within the commissioner's remit are responsible for the delivery, or oversight of delivery, of direct services to the public. Although the Treasury and the Cabinet Office have important and significant roles, they do not perform either of those functions.

Dominic Grieve: It is novel to hear the Minister say that the Treasury performs no
 public service. That may be evidence of the truth, but it seems to me that the Cabinet Office certainly provides and delivers public services. It presides over the delivery of public services by a variety of routes—indeed, it interferes in the delivery of many public services. Why can it not be included?

Paul Goggins: Neither of those Departments delivers services directly to the public, which is why we do not think it appropriate for them to appear in the list.
Mrs. Gillan rose—

Paul Goggins: I seem to be stirring up great excitement.

Cheryl Gillan: I would like to hear the Minister's definition of delivering services to the public, because Her Majesty's Treasury is taking on responsibility for Customs and Excise and various other matters, and Customs and Excise delivers services directly to the public.
Mr. Walter rose—

Paul Goggins: I shall give way again.

Robert Walter: Further to that point, the Treasury is of course responsible for the Inland Revenue, which might well have evidence that is of considerable use to the commissioner in respect of domestic violence proceedings, as it would have access to the financial records of both parties in a violent situation.

Paul Goggins: I hope to be able to satisfy all hon. Members. They will see that, under schedule 6, Customs and Excise is listed as one of the bodies that is under the remit of the commissioner. It is the Treasury and the Cabinet Office that we are seeking to exclude from the list.

Cheryl Gillan: It is ironic that the Inland Revenue is not in the list. Immediately after I mentioned Customs and Excise, I saw that it is listed in paragraph 10 of the schedule, so it was a poor example. However, the Inland Revenue is a good example. It is strange that it is not included in the list, because amendments have been tabled this week to provide powers enabling us to obtain information about individuals from financial institutions. However, direct services are provided by the Revenue, too.

Paul Goggins: I do not want to prolong this debate. I could ask what precisely the Revenue would have to do with victims, but in the spirit of trying to reach consensus whenever we can, I undertake to look carefully at the list in the light of the hon. Lady's comments to see whether there is any merit in her argument, although at this stage I do not feel that there is.

Dominic Grieve: I apologise if I have given an impression of slight astonishment, but the list in schedule 6 is very comprehensive. On the face of it, the activities of the Health and Safety Commission, as opposed to the Health and Safety Executive, seem rather far removed from domestic violence; yet the Minister has seen fit to include both those bodies, so he must have seen some causal connection.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham makes a good point about the Treasury. 
 Indeed, I stand by what I said about the Cabinet Office; it has a considerable remit. I find these distinctions difficult to make. I understand clearly that some Departments are public service delivery Departments, but the Minister has gone a long way down the road of including lots of Departments and agencies that do not have an immediate causal link. I am pleased about that, but will he consider the other ones, too?

Paul Goggins: May I gently point out that the Bill relates to victims, and not just to domestic violence? That is an important point.

David Heath: I want to try to be helpful to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, because it is a little odd to list nine Departments but not the others. Would the Minister consider it sensible to have a catch-all provision mentioning ''any other Department providing services directly to the public'' or something of that sort? That would simply ensure that, if services were moved from one Department to another one that was not listed in the schedule, secondary legislation would not be needed.

Paul Goggins: I shall certainly not commit myself to a catch-all clause at this stage, but I agree to review the list in the light of the comments of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, as I have already undertaken to do. I am satisfied as things stand, but there is no harm in taking a little time to reflect further to see whether the conclusions that had been reached were correct.

Lady Hermon: When the Minister is reviewing the matter, will he look again at the definition of victim and witness? It is clear that a victim is a victim of an offence; a witness is a person who participates in criminal proceedings. The wording of clause 30 is too wide because it allows the Secretary of State to list for other authorities functions of public nature. That is where the difficulties lie. Nothing defines the remit in respect of what the Secretary of State can add to the list. Problems in respect of the Inland Revenue, the Cabinet Office and so on would be resolved if the wording were changed so that authorities had a role in the criminal justice system in England and Wales, which would reflect the definition of victims and witnesses. Without that, even the BBC could be regarded as delivering public services.

Paul Goggins: I hope that the hon. Lady will accept my assurance that I will add her comments to those of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham as I reflect on matters. I do not think that there is a problem, but I shall look carefully at the issue. There is no harm in my taking a little time to do that.
 May I move on—if I dare—to why we want to exclude the Police Service of Northern Ireland from the list? When drafting the Bill, we discussed with the Northern Ireland Office the possibility of extending the provision to Northern Ireland. The conclusion that was reached was that it would not be appropriate for two reasons. First, given that Northern Ireland is a small jurisdiction the view was that the role of a 
 commissioner might conflict with the effectiveness of the criminal justice inspectorate. Secondly, there were worries that the commissioner's work may cut across the responsibilities of individual criminal justice organisations. It was decided therefore that the remit of the commissioner should not be extended to Northern Ireland. 
 Amendment No. 50 proposes to include the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad within the commissioner's remit. Again, that was considered when the Bill was being drafted and, because of the nature and extent of the work of those bodies, it was concluded that they should be outside the commissioner's remit. Amendment No. 51 suggests including the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority constabulary. That organisation has little day-to-day contact with victims and witnesses of crime and it is therefore unnecessary for it to be included within the remit of the commissioner. However, the Ministry of Defence police, a civilian police force whose investigations into crimes against individuals can result in prosecutions in either civilian or service courts, will for the purposes of the Bill be treated as part of the criminal justice system and should therefore be added to the commissioner's remit. 
 Government amendment No. 91 was tabled to that effect and, at the same time, I tabled amendment No. 90 to make clear that organisations are only within the commissioner's remit in so far as they discharge their functions in England and Wales. The one exception is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, because we want the commissioner to have power to review the services and support provided by the Government to those of our citizens who are victimised when travelling overseas.

Lady Hermon: Will the Minister clarify the impact of his amendments Nos. 91 and 90? The jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence Police is obviously limited to England and Wales. However, I remind him that in my wonderful constituency of North Down I have the Palace barracks at Hollywood. A serious issue arose when two outstanding Scottish arrest warrants were issued for a Scottish soldier, so the Ministry of Defence police were involved. The warrants were not served on the soldier punctually while he was serving in Northern Ireland, following which, while he was driving a car, a constituent of mine died. Her parents are obviously victims and continue to suffer. They have not received a decent, honourable response from the Ministry of Defence. That complicated real-life scenario unfortunately involved the death of a young constituent. Why should the Ministry of Defence police not come within the remit of the commissioner in relation to victims and witnesses? The soldier was serving in a barracks in my constituency.

Paul Goggins: I regret the death of the hon. Lady's constituent and the pain that her constituent's parents must be going through. She said that they have not received a response from the Ministry of Defence, so I shall draw its attention to her remarks. None the less, we believe that the remit should remain in England
 and Wales only, with the exception that I mentioned whereby the Foreign Office would fall within its scope in order to cover citizens who are victimised when travelling overseas.
 I am sure that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will be interested to hear that amendment No. 55 would include court martial proceedings in the commissioner's remit. Although some parts of the Bill extend to courts martial, we decided that it was not right to include court martial proceedings within the commissioner's remit, given the nature of army law and the specialised and distinctive support that is available to victims. The question is one of balance and, on balance, we decided not to extend the provisions. 
 With that, I shall ask for support for Government amendments in the group—

David Heath: What about amendment No. 52?

Paul Goggins: Sorry. I was forgetting about amendment No. 52, which would include
''Any authority that is maintaining a body of constables in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.''
 Our preferred approach is to specify which bodies of constables should be included within the commissioner's remit, rather than leave things open-ended. With the exception of the Ministry of Defence police, I therefore reject the proposals.

Robert Walter: I should allow the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome to speak about amendment No. 52 himself, but I think that the proposal is excellent, because it is all-embracing. One of the bodies of constables not included in the list in the Bill is the Royal Parks constabulary. Violence is quite often committed in the royal parks, so I would have expected the Royal Parks constabulary to be a relevant body of constables to be included in an all-embracing clause.

Paul Goggins: I am sure that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will pick up that point when he speaks, so I shall leave it to him to respond. Notwithstanding that, I have indicated that I seek support for the Government amendments in the group.

Cheryl Gillan: I was heartened by part of the response from the Minister, who is obviously going to re-examine the issue. His problems could be solved by including the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to cover the Royal Parks constabulary before it moves, and Her Majesty's Treasury to cover the Inland Revenue. Miraculously, the Government seem to have accepted the proposals that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has advanced. I do not want to pre-empt anything, but I congratulate him unreservedly on achieving a first in the Bill.
 I hope that I have not got anything wrong—I am sorry if I have, but I need an explanation from the Minister. Schedule 6, which is headed ''Authorities within the Commissioner's remit'' has a bearing on clause 27(1), which states: 
''If he is required to do so by a Minister of the Crown, the Commissioner must give advice to the Minister of the Crown in 
connection with any matter which . . . is specified by the Minister, and . . . relates to victims or witnesses.''
 However, clause 27(2) says: 
''If he is required to do so by or on behalf of an authority within his remit, the Commissioner must give advice to the authority in connection with the information provided or to be provided by or on behalf of the authority to victims or witnesses.''
 Does that mean if an authority if not within the commissioner's remit as defined by schedule 6, he is not required to give advice under clause 27(1)? Clause 27(3) says: 
''In this section 'Minister of the Crown' includes the Treasury.''
 It seems to me that subsection (3) is otiose if Her Majesty's Treasury is included schedule 6. Also, there is a lacuna, because even if expressly required to give advice to, for example, the Ministry of Defence, the commissioner does not have to do so because that authority is not within his remit. It appears that there is a gap in logic between the list and clause 27. There may be a perfectly straightforward explanation, but it is strange that the Minister should reject these amendments without considering a complex problem that has arisen from the interpretation of schedule 6 alongside clause 27; it would be much easier to generalise in this list and make it more comprehensive. 
 Something else worries me. A small part of the Bill will take up time because this list will have to be amended in secondary legislation. I do not think that it is unfair to say that the Government change departmental briefs as often as some of us change our socks. Departments win and lose power, and we suddenly find that responsibility for certain topics have nipped across into the bailiwick of a different Department. This schedule will take more trouble than it deserves, as it is only a minor part of the whole process. 
 I will not press my amendment to a Division because the Minister has given me an assurance that he will review the workings of the provision. I hope that he will come up with something that will not take parliamentary time from the many other important matters we have to discuss and that addresses the problem I have with clause 27 and the list.

David Heath: I have a number of amendments in this group. The Minister almost pre-empted some of the remarks I wanted to make by dealing with certain points. However, what he has said has not satisfied me.
 I started from the basic premise that any activities of a public body that impinge on the victims or witnesses in a case should fall within the remit of the commissioner. Any person acting in the office of constable might have an impact on the victims or witnesses in a criminal case. Although the vast majority of those acting in the office of constable are included within the remit, some are not, and that is inexplicable to me. That is why I tabled amendment No. 50, which deals with the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad. NCIS does not have a direct operational role in terms of making arrests but it provides information that is of vital importance in managing prosecutions, and the NCS acts directly with the local constabulary in arresting and charging. Therefore, it is nonsense not 
 to include NCIS and the NCS within the remit of the commissioner. They should be included; they are police organisations and they will have an impact on some victims and witnesses in the exercise of their duties. 
 I am very pleased that the Government have accepted half of amendment No. 51. I cannot imagine how the Ministry of Defence police got left out, but they are now included. I think that the problem of the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence sometimes not quite communicating manifested itself again, but things are now clear. However, why not include the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority constabulary? I accept that it does not arrest many people in the average year; it is largely a protecting body rather than an investigating body. However, it can arrest people.

Cheryl Gillan: It is a guarding constabulary.

David Heath: I thought that the hon. Lady said from a sedentary position that it cannot arrest people, and I thought, ''Well, yes it can.'' It can arrest people and a prosecution can be brought on the basis of that arrest. Therefore, it clearly can affect a victim, or more particularly a witness, in a case.
Mr. Grieve rose—
Vera Baird rose—

David Heath: I have a choice; I will give way to the hon. and learned Lady first.

Vera Baird: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman remembers the CND Snowball campaign of a few years ago, where activists went to installations such as Sizewell and systematically cut one strand of the fence and stepped on to the site. The UKAEA police were involved in policing that. I am not suggesting that there should be another campaign, but that one brought the police into contact with a large number of witnesses and any similar anti-nuclear protest would do so again.

David Heath: I remember those protests, but let us not go there. However, the hon. and learned Lady makes my point. Why should the UKAEA constabulary be excluded from the remit of the commissioner for victims and witnesses simply because it does not arrest many people in the average year?

Dominic Grieve: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I want to return to one point that the Minister might reply to in the debate on schedule 6. The Health and Safety Commission comes under the commissioner's remit, although I find it difficult to see the link between victims and witnesses and that commission, as opposed to the Health and Safety Executive. However, if the commission is included, I cannot think of a good reason for excluding the UKAEA police.

David Heath: I am grateful for that, although I can understand why the Health and Safety Commission is included. That is because its general function is not only to supervise and make recommendations on activities, but to make recommendations to an authority that is within the remit. If the Health and
 Safety Executive is behaving in a way that gives cause for concern to the commissioner, the commissioner may then make a recommendation to the Health and Safety Commission about that. That is the relevance, and I hope that I have at least partly answered the hon. Gentleman's point.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman has answered my question, although I shall wait to hear from the Minister too. I have no objection to the Health and Safety Commission being included, but to widen the issue, we should remember that the Inland Revenue prosecutes. I have prosecuted for the Inland Revenue, and there are victims and witnesses of activities related to it.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right. When approaching the Bill, I thought for a long time about whether it was necessary to propose to include other prosecuting authorities, especially those that are not governmental but do prosecute in the public interest. One example would be the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which mounts prosecutions in the public interest. It was established by charter and is outside government apparatus, but it clearly has a role in the context of victims and witnesses.

Cheryl Gillan: What about local authorities?

David Heath: What indeed? The hon. Lady makes a good point, as local authorities mount prosecutions in respect of trading standards, and I do not believe that they are adequately covered by the inclusion of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Before another hon. Member pops up to mention something else—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for North Down have another ''What about?''

Lady Hermon: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has invited me to pop up. Will he speak to his welcome amendment No. 49, which proposes including the Police Service of Northern Ireland? That will give me an opportunity to intervene on him again and correct the Minister.

David Heath: The hon. Lady could have intervened without my invitation. I tabled the amendment on the PSNI because, having heard what she had to say on Second Reading, it seemed essential that the commissioner's remit be extended to Northern Ireland and that the PSNI be listed with the constabularies of mainland Britain excluding Scotland.

Lady Hermon: In dealing with amendment No. 49, the Minister alluded to the fact that the PSNI would not be included because we have the chief inspector of criminal justice in Northern Ireland. That is right, and the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002—thankfully, proper legislation rather than just an Order in Council—created the office of the chief inspector of criminal justice. However, according to section 47 of that Act, the
''Chief Inspector may not . . . carry out inspections or reviews of individual cases''.
 That means that the chief inspector does not deal with the rights of victims and witnesses to make complaints against the PSNI.

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Lady and hope that the Minister responds to her point. I have another point about the PSNI. It may give evidence or it may have arrested a person who is charged within the jurisdiction of England and Wales. There is no reason why it should not do so, so why on earth should it not be within the commissioner's remit? As I read amendment No. 90, the PSNI is not an authority specified in schedule 6, so it is not included. It therefore seems to me that, were someone arrested by the PSNI but tried in a court in England and Wales, perhaps on associated offences or a joint charge with a police force in England and Wales, the PSNI would not be part of the commissioner's remit. That seems extraordinarily odd.
 Amendment No. 52 contains the catch-all phrase mentioned by the hon. Member for North Dorset. It is a catch-all in two ways. It includes the constabularies that are not listed. I had the Royal Parks constabulary in mind, but the amendment would catch others. My other point is important. I know that the Home Office likes to forget about police authorities, preferring to deal directly with chief constables and take police authorities to court when they do not do what they are told, but police authorities exist and have functions and the amendment would therefore include them. The practice in a constabulary may be such that it should be brought to the attention of the police authority. Paragraph 11 of schedule 6 refers to 
''A police force for a police area in England or Wales.''
 I do not think that that term includes the police authority for the area, but it should do. The amendment refers to 
''Any authority that is maintaining a body of constables in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.''
 That term includes police authorities, is used in statute and is recognised as such. The Minister may not be prepared to accept my amendment. The words ''Northern Ireland'' may have made him shy away from it; I do not know. But will he please consider the fact that the schedule does not include police authorities? That is extraordinary. It includes the Health and Safety Commission, but not police authorities. Police authorities have a function to perform and should be included in the remit. 
 Amendment No. 55 uses the term ''court martial'', which I know causes a problem. The Minister dismissed the amendment because he believes that the relevant matters will be dealt with under military discipline, which is different. Well, I have to say to him in the gentlest possible terms that in a court martial the defendant is usually a member of the armed services, but I know of no rule saying that the victim or witnesses in the case must be. They will often be civilians and outside the terms of any system that is in place in the Ministry of Defence. Such people should be within the remit of the general functions of the commissioner for victims and witnesses. Not to include courts martial in that sphere means that no one is considering the interests of civilian victims and 
 witnesses in the ambit of the court martial system. I hope that the Government will address that omission.

Paul Goggins: This has been an interesting exchange and debate. As I made clear, I will give further consideration to at least one or two aspects of it. In this part of the Bill, we are seeking to strike a balance between the needs of individual victims and their right to expect proper support and good services, and the need not to overburden Departments that do not provide services to victims. The balance can be struck in different ways, and I will think about some of the suggestions made by hon. Members, although we believe that what we are presenting is a reasonable balance.
 We want to include the Health and Safety Commission because it oversees the work of the Health and Safety Executive. It deals with all manner of victims, including victims of train crashes, accidents on building sites and so forth.

Dominic Grieve: I appreciate the Minister's point and I do not object to it, but the reality is that the commission deals with policy issues with the Government, and the executive carries out all the day-to-day functions of health and safety enforcement, which brings it into contact with witnesses and victims. It seems slightly speculative to consider where the commission's remit would likely fall for scrutiny by the commissioner. I have no objection to the measure, but it seems a rather extreme example of the Government casting the net very wide, and I can juxtapose that with other areas where they have cast the net rather narrowly.

Paul Goggins: I acknowledge and appreciate the hon. Gentleman's support for the amendments.
 The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham raised a point about clause 27. Any Minister of the Crown can ask for advice from the commissioner, but that is different from the commissioner dealing with a body and making recommendations without being asked. That relationship is clearly different. Also, the transfer of functions can be dealt with in the transfer of functions order that will be made in any event. 
 The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is intended to cover local authorities, and we do not want to add to the burdens placed on individual local authorities. In any event, and crucially, the commissioner is not supposed to deal with individual cases. Participation at local level is therefore less appropriate. That relates to the issue raised by the hon. Member for North Down, as well. The commissioner operates in relation to the services rather than the individual victim. 
 I can only repeat the point that I have already made about Northern Ireland: within the scope and scale of that jurisdiction, it was felt that there would be the potential for too much conflict between different bodies with responsibility. As for courts martial, I repeat to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that the nature of Army law and the specialist support available led us to the conclusion that that should fall outwith. 
 In respect of amendment No. 52, we clearly did not want to create unnecessary obligations for police 
 authorities, such as NCIS or the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary, which do not deal with victims. However, I will reflect further on the points that the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome and for Chesham and Amersham raised and will come back to Committee members in due course.

Cheryl Gillan: Perhaps my memory is imperfect, but did the Minister deal with the issue of the management of the Royal Parks police?

Paul Goggins: That will be considered during the deliberations that I will undertake. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Lady.
 Amendment agreed to.

Sally Keeble: I beg to move amendment No. 129, in page 17, line 41, at end insert—
'(4) The Commissioner's remit will also include Anti-Social Behaviour Orders pursued by local authorities.'.
 This is only a probing amendment. It is imperfect, and I am not even sure that it falls in the right place, but it raises an issue that has been raised before in this Committee, and it is important in terms of the public perception of crime. Although it might be implicit in the legislation that it can be used to deal with antisocial behaviour, it is not stated explicitly. Given the concern about antisocial behaviour among the general public, it is important to make it clear that the Bill can deal with that. 
 I did wonder where in the Bill the amendment might go. Although I hope that the Minister can assure us that he will return with an amendment, I realise that it might go in a different place—perhaps in the clause relating to general functions or that relating to victims and witnesses. 
 The problem with antisocial behaviour is that it often has no specific victim. The graffiti, stone throwing, noise levels or football playing in an area might be such that people are terrorised and stay indoors. They might perceive themselves to be victims—they will certainly perceive themselves as having been victimised—but they have not been on the receiving end of a specific crime. For that reason, it was hard to think of a way of amending clause 29 in the way that I intended without making it so general that anybody who disliked something in their street could claim to be a victim. There may, however, be a way of changing the provisions on victims and witnesses. 
 I also wondered about an amendment to schedule 6. With hindsight, I am rather glad that I did not table one, given the debate that we have just had. However, tabling a similar amendment to clause 30 or another clause might require consequential amendments to schedule 6. 
 If we are serious about the commissioner considering the needs of victims and having oversight over policy generally, it would be profoundly damaging to leave out antisocial behaviour or to have any fuzziness about it. It is probably the issue about which we, as constituency MPs, get the most complaints, certainly in the context of law and order. Of course, policy and statute on the issue have been 
 developing quickly in recent years, and there have been two rounds of legislation and a host of different policy papers. We also have the new special prosecuting force to carry things through. The commissioner will play an important role in scrutinising dispersal orders and some of the newer orders to see how effective they have been in dealing with the concerns of local communities that are, in broad terms, the victims of such crimes. However, this is a new and developing area and may not, therefore, have been clearly thought through. 
 There is also an issue about the perception of who is responsible for law and order. I do not want to get into a huge debate about schedule 6, but if the commissioner is to consider antisocial behaviour, it is surely important to recognise the role that local authorities play in dealing with it. That is why I included a reference to local authorities in the amendment. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but, in most instances, local authorities take the lead in seeking antisocial behaviour orders and several other orders. They then work in partnership with the police. We must also take into account the role played by local crime and disorder partnerships. If the Bill is to deal with antisocial behaviour properly, as I believe it must, the Government must give some thought to the way in which the commissioner relates to those agencies most closely involved in prosecuting this area of statute. I listened carefully to what the Minister said about schedule 6. He referred to the reason for not including local authorities and mentioning only the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Generally speaking, I accept that that is fair enough, but, in relation to antisocial behaviour, the Bill might need to include some clearer reference to local authorities and the local crime disorder partnerships. 
 I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, but I hope that the Minister will give a commitment to take it away and come back with some more elegantly and properly drafted amendments that apply to the right bit of the Bill and which will give effect to what I suspect that the broad mass of the general public want: a commissioner who deals with antisocial behaviour, and proper recognition of what constitutes a witness and a victim in this important area.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Lady has done the Committee a good service in tabling the amendment. She is absolutely right to highlight what strikes me as a major hole in the Bill. Her amendment probably does not relate to the right part of the Bill, because the real problem is the definition of victims and witnesses in clause 29. Clause 29 clearly limits the definitions. A victim
''means a victim of an offence''
 and a witness means somebody who gives evidence in ''criminal proceedings''. An ASBO relates to none of those things, yet we know from our experience as constituency MPs, and the Minister knows, that the process by which one persuades and encourages a witness to come forward and give evidence to obtain an ASBO is as traumatic and difficult as in criminal 
 cases. Witnesses are sometimes as subject to difficulties as witnesses giving evidence in a criminal case. On the face of it, there is an enormous hole. The commissioner will not be able to intervene to scrutinise whether the process is being conducted properly. 
 ASBOs are the responsibility of local authorities and, as we noted earlier, local authorities are not included in schedule 6. That will raise problems even in relation to straightforward criminal proceedings. It is certainly my experience—other members of the Committee may agree—that ASBOs are often used to deal with noise nuisance. The local authority may well initiate separate criminal proceedings in noise nuisance cases, but again the commissioner will not be able to look at whether the local authority is handling things correctly. 
 The hon. Lady has touched on an enormous area that has been left as a hole, a blank sheet. I hope that the Minister will reconsider how best to tackle the issue. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady that ASBOs must be covered, because they are a category of court proceeding involving victims and witnesses that is of major public concern and, if ASBOs are working, of developing interest.

Vera Baird: Although this note is in a minor key, related to the importance of ASBOs, which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) has rightly put her finger on, we are initiating a new kind of proceeding in the Bill: post-acquittal proceedings for a restraint order. They will be civil proceedings, and none of the witnesses involved will be protected by the activities of the commissioner.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. and learned Lady makes an extremely good point that reinforces the fact that a grey area has developed over the past four or five years—it is the Government's doing—at the meeting place of civil and criminal law, where enforcement proceedings are brought for the purposes of public benefit as opposed to being private civil proceedings. In that area, there are undoubtedly victims, who are often frightened. The commissioner is supposed to be reporting on trying to improve the processes for facilitating their attendance at court. However, we are leaving them out of this section of the Bill. I cannot believe that it is impossible for the Government to deal with that.
 The situation is rectifiable—not through the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Northampton, North, but it is rare for any of us to table amendments that are acceptable to the Government—and I hope that the Minister will come back to the matter on Report. By judicious amendment of clause 29, which concerns the definition of victims and witnesses, and by saying that they can also be categorised as victims or witnesses in ASBO proceedings, we will get what we need, although that still leaves the issue of local authority coverage in schedule 6. I hope that the Minister will take those two areas on board.

Paul Goggins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North for raising this issue. I do not need to expand at length on the
 problems that antisocial behaviour causes in our constituencies. They are a matter of the greatest importance, and we seek to tackle them, not least through the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. It has always been our intention that the commissioner should have a role in relation to coverage of antisocial behaviour. I accept that the Bill, as drafted, does not make that as clear as it should. In raising the point, my hon. Friend, supported by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), has drawn our attention to the need to do more to make explicit the precise remit of the commissioner in relation to antisocial behaviour.

Dominic Grieve: I am delighted to hear the Minister's comments. However, I think that the point goes further. Unless I have misunderstood the definitions in clause 29, the poor old commissioner is specifically prohibited from looking at victims and witnesses in ASBOs.

Paul Goggins: That may be the case, and I shall certainly reflect carefully on it. That is not our intention, which is why we may well need to come back with suitable amendments on Report.
 Two issues have been raised. One is about the definition of victims and witnesses in clause 29; the hon. Gentleman has referred to it, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North. Clearly, we will need to look very carefully at the definition of victims and witnesses. 
 My hon. Friend drew attention to schedule 6. I explained earlier that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will provide an overview of local authorities. None the less, as we consider the issue and the implications of the Bill, we will come back to my hon. Friend, the Committee and the House on Report. 
 We need a little time to reflect on these matters. I ask the Committee to be patient and to give me the time to consider them. I promise that I will bring suitable amendments on Report so that we can ensure that what we originally intended, which was that the Bill and the role of the commissioner should relate to antisocial behaviour, is the case.

Sally Keeble: I am perfectly satisfied with that answer. As I said, the amendment was in what seemed to be the most catch-all clause, and was simply intended to make sure that proper proposals would come forward. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield about victims and witnesses. One slight caveat is that if the definition of victim is opened up too much, it could become virtually meaningless. Real care and thought need to go into it, and I certainly could not produce something that I would think could deal with the issue.

Dominic Grieve: The matter can probably be cured by including ASBO victims not in the category of victims, but of witnesses. That would probably cover most, although not necessary all, likely contingencies. The hon. Lady will recognise that those of my constituents for whom I have corresponded with the police, who have said that they would obtain an ASBO, can be defined in many instances as victims of seriously unpleasant behaviour.

Sally Keeble: We could have a big debate about the definitions in each clause, and it may be that as the work is done and proposals come forward, they will give effect to what is needed. That will also give the general public the security of knowing that their fears and concerns, and their desire for a peaceful, law-abiding community, will be taken on board. The new commissioner will deliver what they want to see, so I am extremely happy with what my hon. Friend the Minister said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 30, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6 - Authorities within Commissioner's remit

Amendment made: No. 91, in schedule 6, page 37, line 2, at end insert— 
'13A The Ministry of Defence Police.'.—[Paul Goggins.]
 Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 31 - Disclosure of information

Amendment made: No. 72, in clause 31, page 18, line 7, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— 
'(b) compliance with sections [Victims of persons sentenced to imprisonment or detention] to [Victims of persons subject to transfer direction and restriction direction];'.—[Paul Goggins.]

David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 53, in clause 31, page 18, line 17, at end insert—
'(e) a Member of Parliament for the constituency in which the victim, witness or other person affected by the offences is resident'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 23, in clause 31, page 18, line 28, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
'(7) Nothing in this section authorises the making of a disclosure which contravenes the Data Protection Act 1998 (c.29). 
 (7A) Notwithstanding subsection (7), any disclosure or processing of information under subsection (1) for the purposes set out in subsection (2) in performance of functions referred to in section 13 shall be deemed to be necessary to be processed for the exercise of any such functions for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998, in particular Section 35 (disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc) and schedules 1 (data protection principles), 2 (conditions relevant for the purposes of the first principle: Processing of any personal data) and 3 (conditions relevant for the purposes of the first principle: Processing of sensitive personal data) of that Act'.

David Heath: I am a signatory to amendment No. 23, which deals with the Data Protection Act, but I shall be happy to let the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham make the points necessary to introduce it.
 Amendment No. 53 deals with a narrow, but important issue: the position of Members of this House in dealing with constituents who find themselves in a court procedure. It is a great shame—I mean no disrespect whatever to the Minister—that the Solicitor-General is not here for this part of the Bill. She is very much apprised of these issues, not least because one of the starting points for my thoughts on the process was the situation that arose in a case presided over by Mr. Justice Mumby, in 
 which the Solicitor-General's sister was involved, when documents were passed to the Solicitor-General and the Minister for Children. I know that the right hon. Lady is aware of the problem that arose—she became aware for a variety of reasons, not least because she made a statement about it to the House—but I understand that serious consideration has been given in the Law Officers' Departments, in conjunction with that of the Leader of the House, as to how the difficulty can be circumvented. 
 It may be extraordinary to have to put into law a provision to allow Members of Parliament to do their work, but what emerged from that case is that there is an issue about Members of Parliament having dealings with their constituents under the circumstances involved. That stems from the courts' interpretation of the Administration of Justice Act 1960. It was clearly held by Mr. Justice Mumby that to share a document relating to an individual with a Member of Parliament—in that case, with a Minister—constituted contempt of court. It has been extrapolated from that that anybody involved in a case, particularly a family court case, who shared their circumstances with their own Member of Parliament would or could be in contempt of court. That is simply not on. There must be a way for our constituents to discuss such matters with us without finding themselves in jeopardy from the courts. 
 In response to questions, the Leader of the House acknowledged the need for urgent action to put the position back to where we thought it had been. Since then, however, we have heard nothing. I do not think that I am divulging any confidences in saying that the matter has also been addressed, albeit superficially, by the Committee on Standards and Privileges, of which I am a member, because there is concern about the issues of privilege involved. 
 One issue is the use of anonymised information for the purposes of developing policy, and that is important. Until now, it has always been assumed that the use of anonymised reports is okay, even when a case is still in progress. It now appears that that is not the case. 
 An individual may have particular points to raise with their Member of Parliament, although not for the purposes of intervening in the case. As we all know, that would be wrong; it is not for Members of Parliament to intervene in a court case. However, the individual's point may raise a public policy issue, which a Member of Parliament, as an assiduous constituency Member, may wish to raise in the House, with Ministers or in some other context. 
 It is important for Members to know, on occasion, what is happening in the courts, because that might affect the matters that we consider in a Committee such as this. It may well be that this very day, there are court cases that would impact on the provisions that we are bringing forward. If that were the case, I would hope that there would be provision for somebody to take the matter to their Member of Parliament—their own MP; I did not mean an MP in a generic sense—and for it to be considered. However, as I understand the state of the law at the moment, that would constitute a contempt of court. 
 My amendment would not deal specifically with the wider spectrum of issues that I raise; I am using it as an opportunity to raise a wider issue on behalf of a large number of MPs who have expressed concern. It relates only to the functions of the commission. It would establish firmly that the commissioner, although he will not normal deal with individual cases, would nevertheless be entirely in order, with the permission of the individual concerned, in sharing the information with a Member of Parliament, if more general issues were raised of which we ought to be aware and which we ought to be able to discuss. 
 I hope that, because of my use of the device of the amendment, the Minister will tell us what progress the Government have made in dealing with the issue, when we are likely to see a statute, if one is necessary to correct the position, and what opportunities there are for making legislative changes. I understand that legislation may well be needed to make a better situation— 
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.